Ultra-processed food

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
User avatar
Light of Blast
Posts: 4970
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Ultra-processed food

Post by Grumble » Thu May 09, 2024 5:50 pm

For a large part of my calories on Saturday I will be relying on a drink made from a powdered mix of sugars and salts. I’m pretty sure if that doesn’t qualify as ultra-processed then nothing does. It would be unhealthy to try and live off it - it’s by no means a complete food - but it will do the job I need it to do. Then I will probably eat a pie, which might also be ultra-processed food, but these things are not like each other. It is a meaningless label.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire Wolds

Re: Ultra-processed food

Post by Boustrophedon » Sat May 11, 2024 1:33 pm

I have been trying to get me head around all this
and failed.

There seems to have been a quite natural reaction to the 'turkey dinosaurs chips and coke diet', which is unhealthy, that I understand. But the definitions of processed and ultra-processed seem nebulous, hard to pin down and not useful.

Then others like Tim Spector have tried to take all this and use it to try to define healthy diets, which in Spector's case requires reading his several expensive thick books that has launched (lunched?) a lucrative career on the back of. Doesn't it really just boil down to 'don't eat to much refined flour and sugar?

I smell b.llsh.t. Particularly as there's a perfectly good, easy to understand guide to feeding yourself healthily, beloved of cookery teachers for generations; the Eatwell plate.
eatwell_plate.jpg (173.82 KiB) Viewed 1010 times
Perit hic laetatio.

User avatar
Princess POW
Posts: 8392
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Ultra-processed food

Post by shpalman » Mon Jul 01, 2024 6:02 pm

shpalman wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2024 9:54 am
I have to admit that on watching presentations and interviews with Chris van Tulleken, I find myself coming round to his ideas. There are caveats, for example he has a go at diet Coke, but the point of diet coke isn't nutrition, it's "pleasure". The debate about artificial sweetners (i.e. sweet flavours which don't contain any bioavailable sugar) confusing your body and whether they help with weight loss is a slightly separate one. There's certainly nothing more healthy about drinking regular coke with all that added sugar in it...
A threads thread about diet soda which seems to have papers linked in it

having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing

Post Reply